no title

We need accurate phone-crash statistics

Letters Policy

The Dispatch welcomes letters to the editor from readers. Typed letters of 200 words or
fewer are preferred; all might be edited. Each letter must include name, home address and daytime
phone number.
Dispatch.com also posts letters that don't make it to print in
The Dispatch.

They’re not the words a parent wants to remember as their child’s last: “Oh, sh**! I’m going to
crash,” Kelsey Raffaele cried into her cellphone that January day in 2010.

The 17-year-old Sault Ste. Marie, Mich. teen was chatting on her cell with a friend when she
passed another vehicle, lost control and crashed. Kelsey died a few hours later in the
hospital.

In Kelsey’s crash, it was not known that a cellphone call was involved until after the crash
report was completed. As a result, cellphone distraction isn’t listed as a cause of the crash in
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS).

This illustrates the challenges of collecting full and accurate statistics about fatal traffic
crashes in which cellphone use is involved. For instance, if cellphone use is suspected as a
contributing factor, call records are difficult to obtain. They often require a subpoena if there’s
suspicion of illegal activity.

If authorities do get the records, they won’t show the entire picture: Was the user on the
phone? Reading a text? Sending one? Ignoring the text to read later?

In cases of suspected driving while under the influence of alcohol, police can test blood
alcohol content (BAC). No equivalent of a BAC test exists for cellphone-distracted driving. And
there is no such test anywhere on the horizon. As a result, an accurate account of cell-related
traffic crashes is hard to come by.

The widely accepted assumption, however, is that they are drastically underreported. The
National Safety Council recently conducted a study funded in part by Nationwide Insurance to
examine 180 fatal crashes between 2009 and 2011 in which evidence showed cellphone use by the
driver.

That may be the tip of the iceberg. Of all the fatal crashes in which the driver was on a
cellphone — and was identified through reliable evidence — only about half were reported as such in
FARS data.

There’s another problem with the numbers: Tennessee, for instance, reported 93 cellphone-related
fatalities in 2011, while a far-more-populous New York reported one fatality. Ohio reported three.
Texas officials said they had 40 cell-related fatal crashes; Mississippi, a southern neighbor,
reported none at all.

Why should we care whether cellphone-involved fatalities are accurately and completely reported
in the federal data bank? Underreporting can have dangerous ramifications.

FARS is responsible for compiling national statistics about fatal traffic crashes and the
factors contributing to them. As such, it has wide influence over prevention priorities,
legislation and policy, funding decisions, media attention — even automobile, road and highway
engineering. To adequately address the problem of cellphone-related traffic fatalities, we need
accurate numbers. We need a clear picture of what is now out of focus.

In 2012, highway fatalities increased for the first time in seven years. With advances in
vehicle safety, road safety and law-enforcement practices, crashes and fatalities should continue
to decline, unless of course a new threat, such as cellphone distraction, has become
widespread.

In 2011, based on the number of drivers using cellphones and the risk factors associated with
cellphone use while driving, the National Safety Council estimates 25 percent of all crashes
involved cellphone distraction. We in the traffic-safety community must advocate for complete
reporting of cellphone-distraction crashes. Until such time as there are reliable measures, any
discussion of fatalities and crash data relating to cellphone distraction should always include a
discussion of the significant limitations of collecting the vital data.

We need a strong commitment to take on this challenge and a reliable method to measure a deadly
trend that has grown out of our need to stay in touch, even when we — and our children — are behind
the wheel.